283 Responses

Cullen may seem unserious to you, perhaps a little boring but "The cupboard is bare" is in my mind pretty accurate.

Well, Sofie, would you pardon me for being cynical enough to assume there's going to be quite a lot of hitherto unknown dosh hidden at the back of the cupboard when Labour starts rolling out some policy of its own -- especially if the last One News poll isn't the mother of all outliers after all.

As I've said before, both Cullen and English have some serious salesmanship to do, because if I was signing off on a budget every penny of tax cuts would be matched with spending cuts. I'm instinctively twitchy about borrowing, and I don't really think Cullen is any more adverse to it than English. And I wouldn't need an order from the Chief Ombudsman to release those numbers either.

To blame the week's McCain drops on 'the economy' is either dishonest, or just plain silly. Half the polling was done before the crashes, and much of the rest on day one.

Simon, an ability to pay attention to world events is sometimes helpful.

On Saturday 13 September lead financial story was the extraordinary trading day of Wall St to mitigate debts pending a possible Lehman Bros collapse. On Sunday 14 September it became apparent that no rescue was possible and that Lehman Bros was going to fold, the expectation was built in all the press that Monday 15 September would be bad. Monday 15 September was very bad.

The effect of Wall Street on polling is still some days off.

And it will continue to be good for Obama.

She's a Democrat asset in making.

Only got seven weeks, making anything stick will take longer than that. If it isn't done by election day it is a deficit to the Democrats.

Had National got into Government it would have sent troops to Iraq and on a pro-rata basis, considering 4000 US troops were killed, there would be 60 body bags coming home, she said.

Clark did look like she had her pants around her ankles on the TV news last night.

"umm, yup. I took the total population of the USA, and the population of NZ, and took a similar proportion of their casualties..."

Yup, so scare-mongering by pulling a random big figure out of the air then. TV news rather sensibly pointed out that Australia had way more troops in Iraq than NZ ever would have had, and they lost one solider.

It's a model of logic compared with this view from the opposition leader:

We supported the right to invade, but not the invasion, but if we did support the invasion, that doesn't mean we would have sent troops, and if we had sent troops, that doesn't mean they would have been hurt, and anyway the war in Iraq is over.

And anyway Iraq is not a "core issue" (it's just, you know, the place where the next generation's world is being screwed).

It's a model of logic compared with this view from the opposition leader

No, Simon. Pulling numbers out of your nethers isn't a model of any kind of logic at all.

And anyway Iraq is not a "core issue" (it's just, you know, the place where the next generation's world is being screwed).

If Clark wants to make Iraq a campaign issue, fine -- though I can think of many other foreign affairs topics that deserve a reality-based debate from trade agreements to whether New Zealand is pulling its weight on the aid front. She doesn't get a pass on making shit up for the sake of an applause line. Otherwise, why don't we just draft Sarah Palin and have it done properly?

Helen Clark made foreign policy judgement a campaign issue today when she told a Grey Power meeting that if New Zealand had invaded Iraq with the US as John Key wanted we would have lost up to 60 soldiers*. Through a spokesman, John Key said “the claim of 60 dead is hysterical and desperate”.

I can’t help noticing that Key isn’t denying that if he had his way we would be in Iraq and soldiers would have died. Instead, he made a misogynist personal attack (yes, it is misogynist, look up hysteria).

First, the police obviously were able to act with some degree of discretion, as was shown by their decision to bypass their own local liaison people in the Urewera.

I know Russell wants this line of discussion shut down, but this point needs a response.The cops will almost always bypass local officers when setting up an operation like this. They may or may not involve them in the planning, but they certainly won't involve them in the execution. Once the operation is over those officers have to remain in the area and carry out their duties, and that ability could be hopelessly compromised if they're seen to be acting against the local community.A good example was the "body snatching" case down on the East Coast, where the police said that if they had to storm the marae to reclaim the body they'd do it with outside officers.

That is irrelevant Angus, it's still a polling truism that it takes days for these things to reflect in the polls. You have no idea what you are talking about...seriously. The Palin speech took almost a week to bounce through fully in the tracking polls. I used to, many years back, work in research and have a rough idea how it works. Commentary from the pollsters online indicates that nothing has changed much.

Simon, an ability to pay attention to world events is sometimes helpful.

On Saturday 13 September lead financial story was the extraordinary trading day of Wall St to mitigate debts pending a possible Lehman Bros collapse. On Sunday 14 September it became apparent that no rescue was possible and that Lehman Bros was going to fold, the expectation was built in all the press that Monday 15 September would be bad. Monday 15 September was very bad.

Yes, so what. Once again Angus, read above. You really don't get this do you? Do you really think that a story like that on the financial pages (the NYT has a circulation of 1m..USA wide) last Saturday is going to filter through to nationwide polling within a day or so...no it will take three or four days after it hits the talkback, the chat shows, the chatter zone, to kick through.

Only got seven weeks, making anything stick will take longer than that. If it isn't done by election day it is a deficit to the Democrats.

It's already sticking, that's evident in several polls. And you still really don't get it, the sticking is about how it sticks to McCain..how the choice of a, now, increasingly tainted VP selection reflects on an increasingly wobbly McCain. You say attack McCain..Palin was a sledgehammer.

Simon Grigg is right. The mistake the Rep. ticket is making now is to be doing all the lying themselves. In the past they have left this to proxies. This year they are lying, and then lying about the lies. It is not a good look and it is getting out there.

If you have time, check out Obama's quote about a meeting of the "ol boys network" being a McCain staff meeting. That's a killer quote.

Yes, so what. Once again Angus, read above. You really don't get this do you? Do you really think that a story like that on the financial pages (the NYT has a circulation of 1m..USA wide) last Saturday is going to filter through to nationwide polling within a day or so...no it will take three or four days after it hits the talkback, the chat shows, the chatter zone, to kick through.

What is the issue of primary concern to the highest number of voters? What is the issue of primary concern to swing voters? What is the issue of primary concern that is so dominating in its position that it outweighs the next highest issue by a factor of typically 4 to 1?

Yes, issues of minor importance take a while to garner a following because no-one cares about them. The economy is not a minor issue.

You seriously believe there are millions of Americans (outside of the KosKids and MILF lovers Anon) who look at their pension funds plummet and think "Palin, yeah Palin really is my biggest concern"? Wow.

What is the issue of primary concern to the highest number of voters? What is the issue of primary concern to swing voters? What is the issue of primary concern that is so dominating in its position that it outweighs the next highest issue by a factor of typically 4 to 1?

Answer: the economy.

Yes, I know that Angus but it doesn't change the immovable fact that it still takes days, up to a week, for these things to filter through fully.

Sorry, but this is hardly radical stuff I'm touting. You just don't get it, or refuse to.

You seriously believe there are millions of Americans (outside of the KosKids and MILF lovers Anon) who look at their pension funds plummet and think "Palin, yeah Palin really is my biggest concern"? Wow.

No they look at the credibility of the candidates.....how simply does this need to be explained to you? It ain't hard.

For those of you bitching about how the TSA tramples on rights, it still requires that the police get a warrant. It imposes judicial oversight, and also demands that leave be sought from the Solicitor General before charges can be laid. That is how checks-and-balances work. A law tramples on rights when it does away with those measures, which the TSA doesn't do.

If you want to get all pissy, get worked up about the new surveillance bill that's before the house. The fuckwittedness that is the USA PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym, not the word Patriot) has finally made its way to our shores, it seems, though at least the police can't demand your bank and library records without going through a judge. Yet.The TSA requires oversight of the police. There are provisions to mitigate against its misuse. No such protections exist in the new bill, and that is a far, far scarier proposition.

No they look at the credibility of the candidates.....how simply does this need to be explained to you? It ain't hard.

I appreciate that you think that Obama is the most credible of candidates, but your opinion of Obama's credibility is exceptional in every sense of the word. You have gone to great lengths to denigrate McCain's long record, but readily accept Obama's much less impressive one. It is only a small fraction of the left that fervently believes Obama is the most credible and the rest go along due to 'my party right or wrong'. How hard is it to get you to understand that most Americans disagree with you and that you are part of a very small bunch of Obamaphiles?

Obama is not the most "credible" candidate, stop sipping the Koskid Kool-Aid and accept this. He has diddly squat executive or foreign affairs experience. He is not a safe pair of hands. Credibility is the overwhelming deficiency in the Obama campaign compared to McCain.

(Same applies Sarah Palin, but she ain't running for President.)

What Obama does have going for him is an expectation that he will bring about change, this becomes a good thing if (and only if) we can convince enough people that something needs changing. Either we play to Obama's real world strengths or we let ourselves be deluded into thinking we can get everybody to sip from our KoolAid. Something needs changing, its the economy.

Yes, I know that Angus but it doesn't change the immovable fact that it still takes days, up to a week, for these things to filter through fully.

BS it is not an "immovable fact", the higher profile the event the smaller the lag. 11-09-01 and 20-03-03 declaration of war on Iraq were big bumps for Bush and imediately were apparent in approval ratings.

I appreciate that you think that Obama is the most credible of candidates, but your opinion of Obama's credibility is exceptional in every sense of the word.

Angus stomps his feet and goes 'it ain't true it ain't true", which seems to be about the sum of these same tired arguments you loop day after day. If I've gone to 'long lengths to denigrate', tell my why I'm wrong rather than tossing out puerile 'koskid koolaid' lines you clearly pinched from some other site..it just makes you look silly.

BS it is not an "immovable fact", the higher profile the event the smaller the lag. 11-09-01 and 20-03-03 declaration of war on Iraq

read, think, Angus...the full effect, even on those post 9/11 figures, which were far more dramatic events, in terms of looping of images over and over again on EVERY bit of TV real estate 24/7 were not shown for over a week afterwards. It kinda makes my point. That the effect, even with that sort of coverage, which was way, way, way more than the Lehman crash, and far, far, far more emotionally wrenching, took a few days, then that is proof.

I'll grant you that there was a jump on the 20th of March but there was a massive shift to war footing in the week building up to that date and troops were ready to go for quite some period prior to the invasion. The buildup to war always brings a surge.

It is only a small fraction of the left that fervently believes Obama is the most credible and the rest go along due to 'my party right or wrong'. How hard is it to get you to understand that most Americans disagree with you and that you are part of a very small bunch of Obamaphiles?

Angus you seem to be out of step with a poll published by the NY Times this day. It seems that large numbers of Americans do find Barack credible.

Despite weeks of fierce Republican attacks, Mr. Obama has maintained an edge on several key measures of presidential leadership, including economic stewardship. Sixty percent of voters said they were confident in his ability to make the right decisions on the economy, compared with 53 percent who felt that way about Mr. McCain. Sixty percent also said he understood the needs and problems “of people like yourself,” compared with 48 percent who said that of Mr. McCain.

More than twice as many said an Obama presidency would improve the image of the United States around the world, 55 percent, compared with those who believed a McCain presidency would do so. Mr. Obama also gets high marks for “sharing the values most Americans try to live by,” despite concerted Republican efforts to portray him as elite and out-of-touch with average voters. Sixty-six percent said Mr. Obama shared their values, compared with 61 percent who said that about Mr. McCain.

And finally the poll found that when asked who they thought would win - 45% said Obama and 38% said McCain. These polls were taken after the Republican convention so the economy woes would have made the differences even more pronounced. The last 2 days have not been good for the McSame ticket by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks a mil Mr Poole; "bitching" and "pissy" for what I thought was genuine concern.

The Reform of search and surveillance powers appears to be complementing the proposed Criminal Proceeds Recovery Bill, which provides for asset seizure and forfeiture withoug conviction. Here is the Select Committee report on that. I read the whole Bill quite a while ago while preparing a submission on it. It appeared to allow surveillance on suspicion. There was no definition of 'reasonable grounds' and although I'm not sure that is required, I'm fairly sure I have seen definition of terms used in other Bills.

Thanks a mil Mr Poole; "bitching" and "pissy" for what I thought was genuine concern.

I get annoyed when people complain that laws that still require judicial oversight, and in the case of the TSA go so far as to require the Solicitor General's acquiescence (which, as we saw, isn't just a rubber stamp), are trampling on liberties. They're not, and can't, because the haven't put all the power with the police. If the TSA tramples on liberties, then the judiciary aren't doing a sufficient job of scrutinising applications for warrants, because the TSA doesn't lower the standards for getting one. It's an irrational complaint to say that a law with oversight somehow tramples liberties, unless you're saying that judges are trampling on liberties too.

Trampling liberties is removing the judiciary from the equation, handing the entirety of the decision-making to a police officer who's got a distinctly vested interest in the proceedings. Judges are there to see justice done, that is all. We've seen from the National Security Letters bullshit in the US what happens when you give cops the power to authorise their own information-gathering escapades.

Alternatively, any law that gives the police any investigative power is trampling on liberties. Which may be a valid point, but if that's the case then we may as well abolish criminal law entirely, disband the police, and revert to law of the jungle.

speaking of china, they did pretty well in preventing any terrorism from directly affecting the games. strangely (considering the motives), I haven't seen a a crumb of terrorism in this city in 6 years. guess that's in part a result of having army garrisons stationed throughout the city, wonder if there's any connection between army garrisons stationed throughout the city and very peaceful and safe neighbourhoods. but bring back the troops and station them in urban NZ areas to help make the cities safer?